Auto accident reimbursement

In the case below it appears that the injured party attempted to make up expenses, and the Judge properly denied his claim.

Holding that the plaintiff-Phillips failed to meet his burden under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant-Auto-Owners. Phillips was injured in an accident when his motorcycle and an automobile collided. Auto-Owners was the insurer of the automobile involved in the accident, and since the accident has paid all the claims Phillips submitted for his medical expenses. However, Phillips filed a complaint against Auto-Owners alleging that Auto-Owners "has refused and neglected to pay a number of [Phillips'] benefits due under the no-fault law including medical and hospital expenses, wage loss benefits, medical mileage, and other benefits." Auto-Owners maintained that it paid all benefits that Phillips was entitled to receive. During his deposition, Phillips admitted that Auto-Owners paid every claim that he submitted, and that he had not communicated with any Auto-Owners representatives or employees as to the claims he maintained were not paid by Auto-Owners. As to his claim for "medical mileage," he admitted that he had not calculated the actual mileage for each of his medical appointments. He also claimed to have some receipts from prescription medications for which he was not reimbursed. However, he admitted he did not know the total dollar amount that he was claiming was owed to him for reimbursement. The receipts were not part of the trial court record and apparently were not presented to the trial court. "No other evidence was referenced during the deposition or presented to the trial court as to Phillips' remaining claims." He claimed that his deposition testimony created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Auto-Owners failed in its obligations to pay allowable expenses pursuant to the No-Fault Act. However, the court concluded that "Phillips did not present any evidence to rebut Auto-Owner's deposition evidence" showing that he never submitted any claim to Auto-Owners that was not paid. The court held that it was clear that Auto-Owners never received reasonable proof of the fact and of the amount of loss sustained because a claim for the benefits was never submitted by Phillips. Thus, there was no evidence to support his representation that Auto-Owners refused to pay allowable expenses that it was liable for under the No-Fault Act, and summary disposition in favor of Auto-Owners was appropriate.